VEDWATI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIRENDRA Saran, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

(2.) IT appears that the applicant filed an application on 13-5-91 against opposite party No. 2 Jagdish Chandra Shukla claim ing maintenance. An exparte order of maintenance was granted on 5-10-91 and the husband, opposite party No. 2 was directed to pay Rs. 150/- per month to the applicant. Thereafter an application for setting aside the ex-parte order was filed by the opposite party No. 2 on 31 -8-92 which was allowed on 2-12- 94. The Court below set aside the ex-pane order and ordered for payment of Rs. 200/ -. IT is not clear from the order whether Rs. 200/- was awarded as costs or they were to be paid as interim maintenance.

(3.) THE case has lingered on for a very long time and more than 9 years have elapsed. In these circumstances, the learned Magistrate shall dispose of the application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. as expeditiously as possible. It is further directed that in case it is not possible to dispose of the application expeditiously, it shall be open to the learned Magistrate to make a clear cut order granting interim maintenance to the applicant as in the instant case very purpose of maintenance proceedings is being frustrated due to delay in disposal.